TT的逻辑/OG-186

terry_tin

No. 186
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill,but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.
which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the augument above?
A. Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill
B.  Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.
C. The impact of offshore operations on the environment can be controlled by careful management.
D. Offshore operations usually damager the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.
E. Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.

The best anwser is A, while my choice is D. D has demonstrate one more disadvantage of offshore operations, why can't this be a weaken point to the argument in the passage?
OG的解释说因为D与Oil spilling没有关系，所以起不到weaken的作用，但是指出另一个比较致命的缺点为什么不能使得原题中的argument得到削弱呢？

1stzhang

按照mindfree的说法D答案是一个out of scope的说法，和原文的逻辑推理没有任何关系原文的结论是要减少漏油的风险，就要加大在offshore的投入减少tanker。原文的结论是一个局部，damager the ocean floor和它是没有关系的。如果原文的结论是加大在offshore的投入减少tanker，就会带来更多的好处。那么D就是削弱

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-5-18 20:45:05编辑过]

siebel

如果e该为：importing oil on tankers is currently MORE expensive than drilling for it offshore.
是否可作为削弱答案（考虑到原文中有提到invest）？

1stzhang

我认为这样改写也是无关的，这队原文的结论没有任何作用

renprince

同意楼上

flywood

有点纳闷,D不可以理解为他因削弱吗?他因削弱不就不需要和原文的理由有牵连?

kangshifu

以下是引用1stzhang在2003-5-18 17:29:00的发言：
按照mindfree的说法D答案是一个out of scope的说法，和原文的逻辑推理没有任何关系原文的结论是要减少漏油的风险，就要加大在offshore的投入减少tanker。原文的结论是一个局部，damager the ocean floor和它是没有关系的。如果原文的结论是加大在offshore的投入减少tanker，就会带来更多的好处。那么D就是削弱

非常有道理，就是这个意思。

我爱欧洲

以下是引用flywood在2004-6-24 1:38:00的发言：
有点纳闷,D不可以理解为他因削弱吗?他因削弱不就不需要和原文的理由有牵连?

削弱的对象不是整个文章，而是推理过程中的对象，本题的对象就是结论中的能否减少泄漏风险。所以其他措施造成的结果无论怎样，如果与泄漏风险无关则不能削弱。2楼的兄弟解释的很清楚！

swlfx

同意楼上。

n加感叹号

非常同意！